We are a Republic, with a Constitution that limits the power of the majority and the power of each branch of government.

Accurate, as long as you remember that the Constitution can be amended. A two thirds majority in the House & Senate, or two thirds of the state legislatures can propose almost any change. It becomes an amendment if three quarters of the states approve it. The only exception is, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." In other words, a minority of less than one third effectively has no rights not allowed it by the remaining two thirds. The Constitution is just a piece of paper without the backing of the people.

In other words, a minority of less than one third effectively has no rights not allowed it by the remaining two thirds. The Constitution is just a piece of paper without the backing of the people.

Well, I'm not sure how other countries amend Constitutions, but In Australia, to change the Constitution, It must be voted on by all citizens over 18 in what’s called a referendum. A referendum must:
Receive an overall majority
And a majority in at least 4 states.
If ether of these conditions isn’t met, no change occurs. It’s the most democratic way that I know of to change a constitution.

Are you born being sure that democracy is the correct form of government? Did you decide it without any impressions from your environment? Is ist a pure wonder, that the people in their states, if democratic or autocrat, are always facing their system as the correct one? NO! It is a hard work of propaganda and I do know more "fanatic democrats" than "fanatic communists"...

Actually, many believe it was Protestantism that gave rise to the ethic of capitalism. Look up The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber. It is very important to distinguish the umbrela term Christianity from Protestantism, for there is not a single cohesive Christianity. ie: Catholicism vs. Protestantism vs. Mormonism vs. Jehova's Witnesses, etc.

Well guys I do not know where you are getting it from but capitalism first appeared in ancient greece within Athens around 500 bc. This is where it first appeared and the model was followed when ancient writings of plato were uncovered. But from there not so sure. My modern history is rather rusty...

First off: This thread have been a very interesting set of discussions so far.

Now, on democracy v. communism, both are ideas that have never been implemented into the real world. And anyone with a bit of education (at least I turned cynic from my years in university, and several of my friends did too...) would claim that neither system is good enough, and that no person is fit to rule anyway. I am inclined to agree with Locutus' technocratic ideal where we are ruled by specialists. My favorite form of government is actually the "enlightend despotism", because people will oppose to abuses from their rulers, and will participate towards the optimal performance of society as a whole (I chose the community-approach here, but I am sure you easily can see it from an individualist's perspective too).

Think about it: when you board an aircraft, would you want an election amongst the passengers on whom to pilot the aircraft? That way you might vote for me, and I assure you - you won't reach your destintion! Or you could vore for a medical doctor because he have the highest education, or you could vote for a politician/lobbyist because he knows how to talk... Or would you prefer to skip the elections, and rather hire a pilot?

On christianity & capitalism, I must support MrGlass. And it is not about religion in it self, but rather about the values that this religion fostered in it's population.

Oh, and I must comment on Dorivina's opening post. Yes: in a representative democracy, you elect a ruler, and that ruler is answerable to the population. As for communism, this is not applicable. The form of communism that scared the USA so, was the Bolshevik model with a byrocratoc, top-down form of administration. The Menshevik (spelling?) approach, that didn't prevail, favored the democratic, bottom-up approach.

(As a side-note: I am a Scandinavian. All three Scandinavian countries are monarchies, but you cannot say we are not democratic. Also, our political and economic model is referred to as social-democracy, and can be understood as a mix between communism and capitalism. (I like to see it as taking the best of both sides, and try to adapt the system to the people, but that's just me being proud.))

So communism isn't about form of government per se, but rather about how you understand property and ownership. The most blatant flaw to it is that you must anticipate all people to behave in the best interest of all. This is perfectly possible once people start to concidter themselves as a part of the whole, with the interests of humanity as the goal, rather than seeing the whole as a means to your own goals.

With the technological trends we see around us today, I can see us moving toeards the communist ideal of the worker owning the means of production. This because we are increasingly depending on knowledge-workers that, in fact, carry their means of production with them - in their own brains. (Brain-power to the people!) Marx feared that force was needed to achieve his utopia, but is seems that the revolution is now commencing in stealth; supported by technology and capitalism. Perhaps we will reach a "Golden middle path" in this area as well..?

I, for one, remain optimistic.

Alteron,
Appointed Chairman of the Central Administrative Unit,
of the Federated Technocratic Republic of the Charnooc

Oh, and I must comment on Dorivina's opening post. Yes: in a representative democracy, you elect a ruler, and that ruler is answerable to the population. As for communism, this is not applicable. The form of communism that scared the USA so, was the Bolshevik model with a byrocratoc, top-down form of administration. The Menshevik (spelling?) approach, that didn't prevail, favored the democratic, bottom-up approach.

Good! Could you give me an example of another model? Are you sure that comunism system is not an ireversible way to that model? Take in account that every, but evry country that tried it finished in almost same model... Do you need examples?

Alteron wrote:

(As a side-note: I am a Scandinavian. All three Scandinavian countries are monarchies, but you cannot say we are not democratic.

My mistake. I made that paralel between comunism ruling and monarcy as the begining of monarchies (despotic). Now monarchies are more a simbol of aristocracy which conservative countries wanted to keep. The countries are democratic but monarcy in its definition is not.

Alteron wrote:

Also, our political and economic model is referred to as social-democracy, and can be understood as a mix between communism and capitalism.

No, is not. Is pure capitalism. Is not in the definition of capitalism to not take care of the poor people. As in the way the Scandinavian countries treat property they surely are capitalist countries. And by the way I don't belive you are from where you say you are...

Alteron wrote:

(I like to see it as taking the best of both sides, and try to adapt the system to the people, but that's just me being proud.))

Ok, what do those countries take from comunism, as in the definition of Pokel?

Alteron wrote:

So communism isn't about form of government per se, but rather about how you understand property and ownership. The most blatant flaw to it is that you must anticipate all people to behave in the best interest of all.

The problem is who will say what is "the best interest of all". Is in human's nature to make mistake in one's own interest, but in "the best interest of all" is a certinity.

Alteron wrote:

This is perfectly possible once people start to concidter themselves as a part of the whole, with the interests of humanity as the goal, rather than seeing the whole as a means to your own goals.

Even in capitalism you put your interests under a group (company, i.e.), country or humanity and is very well done.
What do you want to say here as an adept of a falimentar ideology is that the interests of humanity are yours and not mine so I have to serve you like a slave, isn't it?
Let me tell you that the interests of humanity are ours and mine is part of it and the best way to protect my interests is not to accept such nonsenses.

Alteron wrote:

With the technological trends we see around us today, I can see us moving toeards the communist ideal of the worker owning the means of production.

Hehehe. Scandinavian... 100% bolshevism!

Alteron wrote:

This because we are increasingly depending on knowledge-workers that, in fact, carry their means of production with them - in their own brains. (Brain-power to the people!) Marx feared that force was needed to achieve his utopia, but is seems that the revolution is now commencing in stealth; supported by technology and capitalism. Perhaps we will reach a "Golden middle path" in this area as well..?

Yeah, chinese way, hehehe. What middle way? In Capitalist democracy this middle way is achived by elections. If is a strong economy period the democrats, socialists, social-democrats would be elected the power of the state will increase. When the state will have to much power the liberals, republicans, conservators... would be elected and so on.
What middle can you find in comunism as in definition is 100% state owner?

This was the first time. Try another definition of comunism, but shorter please. Just gen proxim and specific differences.

Oh, Doriniva, please... I don't even know where to begin, and I haven't the time to elaborate. But let me give it a fast try:

First off, I am a Scandinavian (believe it or not), and our social-democratic system (aka the welfare-state) is what helped us grow from being amongst the poorest of the poor. The model includes a strong state that redistributes large amounts of wealth, including the provision of free education and health-care. Had it been pure capitalism, it would have resembled the liberal ideal of the state as a "nightwatchman".

What other models of government would you like to learn about? I can mention direct democracy, republicanism (defined as any form of government where the role as head of state is not inherited), timocracy, anarchy, facism, as well as several forms and appliances of the communist idea. Please refer to Wikipedia's article on Government_type for more details.

When I refer to people acting in the best interst of all, I refer to Spinoza's philosophy of the expanding circles of friends. You will mature and start cooperating with your fellow citicens, as though they were already your friends. Again I'd like to refer to Wikipedia.org, or philosophyforums.org

Also in a capitalist system, poor people is as much a part of the labour-markets as anyone else, and they are fundamentally responsible for their own sucess, and not "entiteled" any benefits from the state. But that is because there si not supposed to be any state.

Oh, Doriniva, please... I don't even know where to begin, and I haven't the time to elaborate. But let me give it a fast try:
First off, I am a Scandinavian (believe it or not), and our social-democratic system (aka the welfare-state) is what helped us grow from being amongst the poorest of the poor. The model includes a strong state that redistributes large amounts of wealth, including the provision of free education and health-care. Had it been pure capitalism, it would have resembled the liberal ideal of the state as a "nightwatchman".

Ok, if you are Scandinavian you are in a total confusion. you are talking like a chinese, a chinese lider. A "state that redistributes large amounts of wealth" doesen't anything to do with communism.
First: Does that state act like a player in a capitalist environment? Not only the dimension of the property of state, but how it act is also important. In your vision of communism any share holder of a company is communist?

Alteron wrote:

What other models of government would you like to learn about? I can mention direct democracy, republicanism (defined as any form of government where the role as head of state is not inherited), timocracy, anarchy, facism, as well as several forms and appliances of the communist idea. Please refer to Wikipedia's article on Government_type for more details.

When I refer to people acting in the best interst of all, I refer to Spinoza's philosophy of the expanding circles of friends. You will mature and start cooperating with your fellow citicens, as though they were already your friends. Again I'd like to refer to Wikipedia.org, or philosophyforums.org

So, you want to use the definition from Wikipedia? OK!
"people acting in the best interst of all" have nothing to do with "common ownership of the means of production"
"people acting in the best interst of all" could happened and is happening in a capitalist environment often. Is a caracteristic of human kind not having to much to do with ownership of anything. Would you jump into water to save one of your fellow more if you are aware about your common ownership of means of production?
And now, lets see about communism definition.
First: "stateless social organization" is meaningless. If there is social organization you can name it. You can name it wikistate or as you wish... but was already named it "state". In my opinion stateless means without social organization. After we will seattle this problem we can discuss more on this definition...

What is also not written in wikipedia, but we have to agree upon it is that in communism everything has to be state owned orelse we will have capitalist relations and the country isn't a comunist one, but a capitalist one with very powerfull state. Could be a despotism or tyrany or something else...

And now, if these conditions are met the faliment is unavoidable.

Alteron wrote:

Also in a capitalist system, poor people is as much a part of the labour-markets as anyone else, and they are fundamentally responsible for their own sucess, and not "entiteled" any benefits from the state. But that is because there si not supposed to be any state.

Sorry but I realy don't understand this: In capitalism there si not supposed to be any state?
Maybe you wanted to say "in communist system". If you ""not "entiteled" any benefits from the state"" for the poor. Indeed is a very complicated thing as if you make a competitional communism those who achive welfare
will gain power in the "social organization" and that means a bigger part from that common property. That is because, in this terms, what is happening in such "social organization" is that the property could be asimilated with administration and the more power in administration means more property. Is indeed a hidden way of property but is still poperty...

I also am very bussy so is no problem waiting for an elaborate answer.

Well, even if there are many months I do play to Kosmor, I lately began to visit the kosmor forum, so I only found this subject now...
I have many things to say:

first:
Doriniva: It may haven't any links with this subject, but I need to tell you: "Man you're just like me". At my school (because I'm still a student from what you may call High School...), many peoples hate me when, in any projects, I destroy all their arguments one by one...

Second:
I read it fastly, so I didn't got much of the arguments told in it. I'm going to take a better position in this debate later on...

Third:
This is much my own opinion about capitalism/democraty/communism:
I don't even think I do beleive in any one.
Democraty: because (at least here in Quebec) we are in a representative democraty, so we don't have much power when something is, as we say it here (even if nobody ever goes to church now...), when something unCatholic does happen...
Capitalism: Every one wants to have more and more cash, not even caring to the others, the environment, or anything... (hate it) And, here, we do have some fanatics of the capitlists: Alfonso Gagliano, an ex-ambassador in denmark and Italia, Jean breault, Jean Chrétien (an ex-prime minister of canada), Paul Martin (an ex-prime minister of canada, the one who was next to Jean-Chrétien...), who were all in the "commandits scandal" (free translate...) and Vincent Lacroix who also stole the system... That's why I hate this system...

In Quebec, we happened to have a government with a bit of socialism, be he's more a government of center (that steals all the money of the Quebeccers...)

Me, my own dream, is a world where the most important thing is not only economy, but really science. When I read on this forum, I don't even remember who wrote it, that the communists countries weren't real countries, you made me think a lot... Now, there's not a country able to do it right... It's sure I don't like communism a lot, I prefer socialism... center-socialism? well, what I dream of is a kind of socialism where science is big leader (Every time I do hear that they give books on creationism in USA, I'm always ready t go fight all the responsibles...) and every comunity is well represented... I know it's a dream, but I also know I prefer to work in the shadows (and let the others crash). I do think this is the best way of trying it: by the undergrounds: as the movement gets bigger, you can correct it, and, at the end, you're gonna win your fight...

To say it in resume: I think that the best would be something like UN, but the goal wouldn't be to be the richest one, but to develop science...

Fourth:
Another one without any links to the current subject:
Alteron, I always wanted to go and visit the Scandinavian Countries, maybe in some years, when I'll have got out of the university...

Capitalism: Every one wants to have more and more cash, not even caring to the others, the environment, or anything...

This is another subject. And is an interesting one.
"Capitalism: Every one wants to have more and more cash"
Indeed this is capitalism. One who wants "more cash" is a capitalist. (It's interesting what could be the definition of a comunist? One who wants less money? hehehe) But is more a demand of an animalic instinct. All animals have a characteristic instinct of self-preserve. In the human society "more cash" means to better serve this demand. We have to go deeper in this direction to see al the implications.
I prefere now to see what "not even caring to the others" means.
If one who wants "more cash" will "not even caring to the others" that means he is a fool. First, he will transform "the others" in comunists, in thiefs who will steal from him more than he can give with consent.
This is usualy called social security or medical assurance or social assistance or humanitarian help or charity or... god knows how many other names can have...
Second, is in your interest when you want "more cash" to use the others to help you produce this money and one of the condition for that is to take care of them (like Churchill says). If you have a business and don't care of your workers you don't have the chance to be an aristocrat of that business. This is also a subject to long to finish it now.

carboneater wrote:

(hate it) And, here, we do have some fanatics of the capitlists: Alfonso Gagliano, an ex-ambassador in denmark and Italia, Jean breault, Jean Chrétien (an ex-prime minister of canada), Paul Martin (an ex-prime minister of canada, the one who was next to Jean-Chrétien...), who were all in the "commandits scandal" (free translate...) and Vincent Lacroix who also stole the system... That's why I hate this system...

In Quebec, we happened to have a government with a bit of socialism, be he's more a government of center (that steals all the money of the Quebeccers...)

When in the democracy a comunist calls himself socialist or even liberal, you can see the truth because he is that "who ... stole the system".

carboneater wrote:

Me, my own dream, is a world where the most important thing is not only economy, but really science.

This is like a man with just brain and without body.
Researches can be made sometimes only with lots of money which are made in the economy.
And if we speake about science we have to speake also about progress, about directions, about morale...

carboneater wrote:

To say it in resume: I think that the best would be something like UN, but the goal wouldn't be to be the richest one, but to develop science...

Like Bill Gates being one of the richest who didn't develop science? Hehehe, joking!!!